基于生态系统脆弱性评价的典型岩溶区生态治理分区

胡兆鑫; 罗为群; 蒋忠诚; 吴泽燕; 汤庆佳

doi:10.11932/karst2024y026

基于生态系统脆弱性评价的典型岩溶区生态治理分区

doi: 10.11932/karst2024y026

胡兆鑫^{1, 2,},
罗为群^{1, 2},
蒋忠诚^{1, 2},
吴泽燕^{1, 2},
汤庆佳^{1, 2}

1.
中国地质科学院岩溶地质研究所/自然资源部、广西岩溶动力学重点实验室/联合国教科文组织国际岩溶研究中心, 广西桂林 541004
2.
广西平果喀斯特生态系统国家野外科学观测研究站/百色平果喀斯特生态系统广西野外科学观测研究站, 广西平果 531406

基金项目: 国家重点研发计划课题（2022YFF1300702）；广西科技基地和人才专项（桂科22-035-130-05）；中国地质调查局地质调查项目“南方石漠化重点区综合地质调查与评价”（DD20190502）；中国地质调查局地质调查项目“南方岩溶区石漠化生态地质调查”（DD20230453）

详细信息

作者简介:
胡兆鑫（1990－），男，硕士，助理研究员，研究方向为岩溶生态地质与生态修复。E-mail：hzhaoxin@mail.cgs.gov.cn

中图分类号: X171.4
计量
- 文章访问数: 74
- HTML浏览量: 18
- PDF下载量: 142
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2023-08-23
- 网络出版日期: 2024-08-15
- 刊出日期: 2024-06-25

Zoning of ecological treatment in typical karst areas based on ecosystem vulnerability assessment

HU Zhaoxin^{1, 2
,},
LUO Weiqun^{1, 2},
JIANG Zhongcheng^{1, 2},
WU Zeyan^{1, 2},
TANG Qingjia^{1, 2}

1.
Institute of Karst Geology, CAGS/ Key Laboratory of Karst Dynamics, MNR & GZAR/International Research Centre on Karst under the Auspices of UNESCO, Guilin, Guangxi 541004, China
2.
Pingguo Guangxi, Karst Ecosystem, National Observation and Research Station/ Pingguo Baise, Karst Ecosystem, Guangxi Observation and Research Station, Pingguo, Guangxi 531406, China

摘要

摘要: 文章以广西平果果化石漠化生态修复示范区为研究对象，基于“成因—结果”模型选取7个指标建立生态系统脆弱性评价指标体系，利用GIS技术和层次分析法进行生态系统脆弱性评价，通过单参数分析法计算各评价指标对生态系统脆弱性的贡献率，分析造成研究区生态系统脆弱性的主要影响因素。结果表明：研究区微度、轻度、中度、重度和极度脆弱生态系统脆弱性等级面积占比分别为36.43%、33.90%、18.91%、9.34%和1.43%，造成研究区生态系统轻度、中度脆弱的主要因素是岩性和土地利用方式，造成研究区生态系统重度、极度脆弱的主要因素是生态环境退化。依据评价结果，基于土地利用现状，结合坡度、地块面积等条件，划定生态治理分区并制订相应治理措施。其中，封山育林区应禁止一切人为破坏活动；人工造林区可在植被盖度较低的地块种植阳性树种，在植被群落高度较高、盖度适中的地块种植中性和阴性树种；林下种植区可引进赤苍藤、金银花等特色经济植物；草地改良区可引进桂牧一号、菊苣草、甜象草等优质牧草；园地改造区可在现有经果林下套种赤苍藤、金银花等矮杆经济作物；特色经济植物种植区可引进赤苍藤、树仔菜等常绿经济植物；退耕还林区因地制宜造林种草；矿山修复区采用多种技术手段复垦复绿；非治理区保持现状。
- 岩溶 /
- 生态系统脆弱性评价 /
- 生态治理分区 /
- 果化示范区 /
- 环境退化
Abstract: Guohua Demonstration Zone for Ecological Restoration of Desertification (hereinafter referred to as Guohua Demonstration Zone) is located in Guohua town, Pingguo City, Guangxi, with a total area of 30 km². It is a typical area of karst peak-cluster depression. Before the treatment of rocky desertification, Guohua Demonstration Zone suffered from severe rocky desertification and soil erosion. Few crop varieties grew there with low land productivity. This area was covered with less than 10% of vegetation and less than 1% of forest. Consequently, it was extremely fragile in ecological environment. After more than 20 years of systematic governance, the vegetation coverage in the demonstration area has increased to 85%, and the proportion of rocky desertification area has decreased from the original 76% to 12%. The ecological environment has been greatly improved.This study aims to further provide a scientific basis for the ecological protection and restoration in the demonstration area, and to provide reference for the development of ecological governance strategies in karst areas based on the results of ecosystem vulnerability evaluation at a micro scale. With these purposes, this study has established an index system for ecosystem vulnerability evaluation. Based on the "cause-effect" model, this study selected seven indicators including rock type, slope, comprehensive soil nutrient level, land use status, vegetation coverage, soil erosion intensity, and degree of rocky desertification. In a 10 m×10 m grid taken as a unit, GIS technology and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) were used to conduct a high-resolution ecosystem vulnerability evaluation in Guohua Demonstration Zone. By single parameter analysis, the contribution rate of each evaluation index to ecosystem vulnerability was calculated to analyze the main influencing factors causing ecosystem vulnerability in the study area.The results showed that the proportions of areas with micro, mild, moderate, severe, and extremely fragile ecosystem in the study area were 36.43%, 33.90%, 18.91%, 9.34%, and 1.43%, respectively. The main factor causing micro vulnerability of ecosystem in the study area is natural background, and ecological treatment in micro-vulnerable area should mainly focus on the maintaining of current situation, especially the protection of existing forest and grass vegetation. The main factors causing mild and moderate vulnerability of the ecosystem in the study area are natural background and human activities. Ecological treatment in mild and moderate vulnerable areas should focus on the protection of existing forest and grass vegetation and the limiting of human activities. The main factor causing severe and extremely vulnerability of the ecosystem in the study area is degradation of ecological environment. Ecological treatment in severe and extremely vulnerable areas should focus on the strict restriction of human activities and the restoration of forest and grass vegetation. According to statistical analysis of the overall vulnerability of ecosystem in different land uses in the study area, the main directions in ecological treatment for different land uses were proposed. Paddy fields should be mainly developed and utilized. Dry land, grassland and gardens should be developed and utilized under the premise of protection and restoration. The existing vegetation in forest land should be protected to achieve a positive vegetation succession, with appropriate development and utilization. Mining land should be restored ecologically. Other land types should be maintained in their current status.Based on the slope and land area, the study area was divided into nine zones: the mountainous zone closed off for afforestation, the artificial afforestation zone, the under-forest planting zone, the zone for grassland improvement, the zone for garden transformation, the zone for special economic plants, the zone for returning cropland back to forests, mining restoration zone, and non-treatment zone. Specific measures for treatment were proposed for each zone. To protect existing vegetation and promote natural positive succession of vegetation, human activities such as land reclamation, grazing, and firewood cutting should be prohibited in the mountainous zone closed off for afforestation. In the artificial afforestation zone, heliophilous species such as Dalbergia odorifera T. Chen., Delavaya toxocarpa Franch. and Leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit, which need light in plots with low vegetation coverage can be planted. In plots with high vegetation height and moderate coverage, neutral and sciophilous species such as Cyclobalanopsis Oerst. and Caesalpinia sappan L., which need some shade can be planted. Vine shrubs such as Euonymus fortunei (Turcz.) Hand.-Mazz. and Ficus pumila L. can be planted on side slopes and steep slopes to form plant hedges. In the under-forest planting zone, characteristic economic plants suitable for karst areas, such as Erythropalum scandens Bl. and Lonicera japonica Thunb can be introduced. In the zone for grassland improvement, high-quality perennial grass with strong resistance such as Guimu No.1, Cichorium intybus L. and Pennisetum purpureum, can be cultivated to develop livestock husbandry. In the zone for garden transformation, low-stem economic crops such as Erythropalum scandens Bl. and Lonicera japonica Thunb. can be intercropped under the forest. In the zone for special economic plants, evergreen wild vegetables suitable for growing in karst areas, such as Erythropalum scandens Bl. and Sauropus androgynus (L.) Merr. can be introduced to replace traditional crops such as corn. In the zone for returning farmland to forest, afforestation and grass planting should be carried out to promote the restoration for forest and grass vegetation according to local conditions. Ecological slope protection, site leveling, greening, and backfilling with netted soil can be implemented for reclamation and greening in the mining restoration zone. In non-treatment zone, the current situation can be maintained.
- karst /
- ecological vulnerability evaluation /
- zoning of ecological treatment /
- Guohua Demonstration Zone for Ecological Restoration of Desertification /
- environmental degradation

HTML

图 1 研究区土地利用现状

Figure 1. Land use of the study area

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 研究区生态系统脆弱性空间分布

Figure 2. Spatial distribution of ecosystem vulnerability in the study area

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 研究区生态治理分区

Figure 3. Zoning of ecological treatment in the study area

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 生态系统脆弱性评价指标体系

Table 1. Index system of evaluating ecosystem vulnerability

目标层	生态系统脆弱性（A）
准则层	成因指标（B₁）					表现特征指标（B₂）
指标层	岩性（C₁）	坡度（C₂）	土壤养分综合等级（C₃）	土地利用现状（C₄）	植被覆盖度（C₅）	土壤侵蚀强度（C₆）	石漠化程度（C₇）
权重	0.103 3	0.103 3	0.042 0	0.109 4	0.206 6	0.159 9	0.275 5

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 各评价指标分值

Table 2. Scores of evaluation indexes

分值	5	4	3	2	1	0
岩性	灰岩	白云岩	灰岩与白云岩互层	碳酸盐岩夹碎屑岩	碎屑岩夹碳酸盐岩	非岩溶区
坡度	险坡（≥45°）	急坡（≥35°~45°）	陡坡（≥25°~35°）	斜坡（≥15°~25°）	缓坡（≥5°~15°）	平坡（<5°）
土壤养分综合等级	五等（缺乏）	四等（较缺乏）	三等（中等）	二等（较丰富）	一等（丰富）
土地利用现状	采矿用地	旱地、水浇地	住宅用地、交通运输用地、设施农用地等其他地类	园地	草地	水田、水域及水利设施用地、林地、特殊用地
植被覆盖度	<30%	30%~40%	40%~50%	50%~60%	60%~70%	>70%
土壤侵蚀强度	剧烈侵蚀	极强烈侵蚀	强烈侵蚀	中度侵蚀	轻度侵蚀	微度侵蚀
石漠化程度	重度石漠化		中度石漠化		轻度石漠化

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 各生态系统脆弱性等级面积及占比

Table 3. Area and proportion of each ecosystem vulnerability level

生态系统脆弱性等级	面积/km²	占比/%
微度脆弱	10.91	36.43
轻度脆弱	10.15	33.90
中度脆弱	5.66	18.91
重度脆弱	2.80	9.34
极度脆弱	0.43	1.43

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 各评价指标对不同生态系统脆弱等级贡献率

Table 4. Contribution rates of various evaluation indexes for different ecosystem vulnerability levels

指标	贡献率/%
指标	微度脆弱	轻度脆弱	中度脆弱	重度脆弱	极度脆弱
岩性	65.62	49.70	35.54	24.06	15.25
坡度	15.10	16.07	8.46	4.52	4.47
土壤养分综合等级	17.63	11.11	8.26	5.43	3.43
土地利用现状	0.84	15.17	14.79	13.25	3.92
植被覆盖度	0.23	1.86	8.79	30.60	31.02
土壤侵蚀强度	0.43	4.37	19.51	16.31	10.94
石漠化程度	0.14	1.71	4.65	5.83	30.97

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 不同土地利用现状各生态系统脆弱性等级面积及占比

Table 5. Area and proportion of various ecosystem vulnerability levels in different land use types

土地利用现状		微度脆弱	轻度脆弱	中度脆弱	重度脆弱	极度脆弱	合计
水田	面积/hm²	282.68	6.65	4.30	0.52	0.09	294.24
水田	占比/%	96.07	2.26	1.46	0.18	0.03	100.00
旱地	面积/hm²	4.69	318.31	217.02	72.01	1.96	613.99
旱地	占比/%	0.76	51.84	35.35	11.73	0.32	100.00
园地	面积/hm²	5.86	21.50	33.20	35.89	3.25	99.70
园地	占比/%	5.88	21.56	33.30	36.00	3.26	100.00
林地	面积/hm²	773.24	639.84	288.37	77.15	28.15	1806.75
林地	占比/%	42.80	35.41	15.96	4.27	1.56	100.00
草地	面积/hm²	1.38	1.23	0.89	0.95	0.61	5.06
草地	占比/%	27.27	24.31	17.59	18.77	12.06	100.00
采矿用地	面积/hm²	0.01	0.09	0.24	0.29	3.21	3.84
采矿用地	占比/%	0.26	2.34	6.25	7.55	83.59	100.00
其他地类	面积/hm²	22.75	27.36	22.06	92.88	5.53	170.58
其他地类	占比/%	13.34	16.04	12.93	54.45	3.24	100.00

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(52)

[1]	徐君, 李贵芳, 王育红. 生态脆弱性国内外研究综述与展望[J]. 华东经济管理, 2016, 30(4):149-162. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5097.2016.04.025 XU Jun, LI Guifang, WANG Yuhong. Review and prospect of research on ecological vulnerability in China and abroad[J]. East China Economic Management, 2016, 30(4): 149-162. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5097.2016.04.025
[2]	屈志强, 沈婷婷, 徐胜利, 刘洋, 韩国栋. 生态脆弱性评价概述[J]. 草原与草业, 2020, 32(3):1-4. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-5952.2020.03.002 QU Zhiqiang, SHEN Tingting, XU Shengli, LIU Yang, HAN Guodong. Review of ecological vulnerability evaluation[J]. Grassland and Prataculture, 2020, 32(3): 1-4. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-5952.2020.03.002
[3]	徐灵芝, 潘继征, 李勇, 华跃洲, 李清濯, 阳振, 何尚卫, 杜成栋. 1980—2020年滇池生态脆弱性评价及主要驱动因子[J]. 湖泊科学, 2023, 35(5):1682-1693. XU Lingzhi, PAN Jizheng, LI Yong, HUA Yuezhou, LI Qingzhuo, YANG Zhen, HE Shangwei, DU Chengdong. The ecological vulnerability evaluation and its driving force in Lake Dianchi, 1980–2020[J]. Journal of Lake Sciences, 2023, 35(5): 1682-1693.
[4]	张娜, 周国富, 雷嫦, 韦荣婷. 基于SRP模型的喀斯特山区生态脆弱性评价:以遵义市为例[J]. 贵州科学, 2022, 40(3):43-50. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-6563.2022.03.011 ZHANG Na, ZHOU Guofu, LEI Chang, WEI Rongting. Ecological vulnerability assessment in karst mountain area based on SRP model: A case study on Zunyi City[J]. Guizhou Science, 2022, 40(3): 43-50. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-6563.2022.03.011
[5]	乔青, 高吉喜, 王维, 田美荣, 吕世海. 生态脆弱性综合评价方法与应用[J]. 环境科学研究, 2008(5):117-123. QIAO Qing, GAO Jixi, WANG Wei, TIAN Meirong, LYU Shihai. Method and application of ecological frangibility assessment[J]. Research of Environmental Sciences, 2008(5): 117-123.
[6]	徐广才, 康慕谊, 贺丽娜, 李亚飞, 陈雅如. 生态脆弱性及其研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(5):2578-2588. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2009.05.047 XU Guangcai, KANG Muyi, HE Lina, LI Yafei, CHEN Yaru. Advances in research on ecological vulnerability[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2009, 29(5): 2578-2588. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2009.05.047
[7]	苑涛, 贾亚男. 中国西南岩溶生态系统脆弱性研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(32):175-180. YUAN Tao, JIA Ya'nan. Research progresses on vulnerability of karst ecological system in Southwest China[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2011, 27(32): 175-180.
[8]	张学玲, 余文波, 蔡海生, 郭晓敏. 区域生态环境脆弱性评价方法研究综述[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(16):5970-5981. ZHANG Xueling, YU Wenbo, CAI Haisheng, GUO Xiaomin. Review of the evaluation methods of regional eco-environmental vulnerability[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(16): 5970-5981.
[9]	Nick Brooks, W Neil Adger, P Mick Kelly. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2004, 15(2): 151-163.
[10]	邓亚东, 孟庆鑫, 吕勇, 罗书文, 潘明. 基于PSR模型的地质遗迹景观脆弱性评价:以永福县为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2021, 40(5):868-875. doi: 10.11932/karst20210512 DENG Yadong, MENG Qingxin, LYU Yong, LUO Shuwen, PAN Ming. Evaluation of the vulnerability of geological heritage landscape based on PSR model: Taking Yongfu county as an example[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2021, 40(5): 868-875. doi: 10.11932/karst20210512
[11]	李荣彪, 洪汉烈, 殷科, 李阳兵, 杨广斌, 安裕伦. 喀斯特生态环境敏感性评价:以都匀市为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2009, 28(3):300-307. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4810.2009.03.012 LI Rongbiao, HONG Hanlie, YIN Ke, LI Yangbing, YANG Guangbin, AN Yulun. Evaluation on karst eco-environment sensitivity: A case study in Duyun City[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2009, 28(3): 300-307. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4810.2009.03.012
[12]	Shao Huaiyong, Liu Meng, Shao Qiufang, Sun Xiaofei, Wu Jinhui, Xiang Zhiying, Yang Wunian. Research on eco-environmental vulnerability evaluation of the Anning river basin in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2014, 72: 1555-1568. doi: 10.1007/s12665-014-3060-9
[13]	Wang Siyuan, Liu Jingshi, Yang Cunjian. Eco-environmental vulnerability evaluation in the Yellow River Basin, China[J]. Pedosphere, 2008, 18(2): 171-182. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(08)60005-3
[14]	靳毅, 蒙吉军. 生态脆弱性评价与预测研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 2011, 30(11):2646-2652. JIN Yi, MENG Jijun. Assessment and forecast of ecological vulnerability: A review[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2011, 30(11): 2646-2652.
[15]	李洪广, 周旭, 肖杨, 罗雪, 梁任刚, 杨大方. 基于SRP模型的西南喀斯特山区生态脆弱性时空变化特征[J]. 生态科学, 2021, 40(3):238-246. LI Hongguang, ZHOU Xu, XIAO Yang, LUO Xue, LIANG Rengang, YANG Dafang. Temporal and spatial changes of ecological vulnerability in southwestern karst mountains based on SRP model[J]. Ecological Science, 2021, 40(3): 238-246.
[16]	封建民, 郭玲霞, 李晓华. 基于景观格局的榆阳区生态脆弱性评价[J]. 水土保持研究, 2016, 23(6):179-184. FENG Jianmin, GUO Lingxia, LI Xiaohua. Analysis of ecological vulnerability in Yuyang district based on landscape pattern[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2016, 23(6): 179-184.
[17]	李佳芮, 张健, 司玉洁, 刘玉, 刘庆群, 卢文虎. 基于VSD模型的象山湾生态系统脆弱性评价分析体系的构建[J]. 海洋环境科学, 2017, 36(2):274-280. LI Jiarui, ZHANG Jian, SI Yujie, LIU Yu, LIU Qingqun, LU Wenhu. System analysis of Xiangshan bay ecological vulnerability assessment system based on VSD model[J]. Marine Environmental Science, 2017, 36(2): 274-280.
[18]	王钰, 胡宝清. 西江流域生态脆弱性时空分异及其驱动机制研究[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2018, 20(7):947-956. doi: 10.12082/dqxxkx.2018.170633 WANG Yu, HU Baoqing. Spatial and temporal differentiation of ecological vulnerability of Xijiang river in Guangxi and its driving mechanism[J]. Journal of Geo-information Science, 2018, 20(7): 947-956. doi: 10.12082/dqxxkx.2018.170633
[19]	Jiang Zhongcheng, Lian Yanqing, Qin Xiaoqun. Rocky desertification in Southwest China: Impacts, causes, and restoration[J]. Earth Science Reviews, 2014, 132: 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.01.005
[20]	蒋忠诚, 罗为群, 童立强, 程洋, 杨奇勇, 吴泽燕, 梁建宏. 21世纪西南岩溶石漠化演变特点及影响因素[J]. 中国岩溶, 2016, 35(5):461-468. JIANG Zhongcheng, LUO Weiqun, TONG Liqiang, CHENG Yang, YANG Qiyong, WU Zeyan, LIANG Jianhong. Evolution features of rocky desertification and influence factors in karst areas of Southwest China in the 21^st century[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2016, 35(5): 461-468.
[21]	罗飞, 苏春田, 潘晓东, 杨杨, 赵光帅. 典型岩溶丘陵区地下水水化学特征及地球化学敏感性分析:以武冈东部地区为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2018, 37(2):211-217. doi: 10.11932/karst20180207 LUO Fei, SU Chuntian, PAN Xiaodong, YANG Yang, ZHAO Guangshuai. Hydrochemical characteristics and geochemical sensitivity of groundwater in typical karst hilly regions: A case study of eastern Wugang[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2018, 37(2): 211-217. doi: 10.11932/karst20180207
[22]	曹建华, 袁道先, 章程, 蒋忠诚. 受地质条件制约的中国西南岩溶生态系统[J]. 地球与环境, 2004, 32(1):1-8. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9250.2004.01.001 CAO Jianhua, YUAN Daoxian, ZHANG Cheng, JIANG Zhongcheng. Karst ecosystem constrained by geological conditions in Southwest China[J]. Earth and Environment, 2004, 32(1): 1-8. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9250.2004.01.001
[23]	袁道先. 全球岩溶生态系统对比:科学目标和执行计划[J]. 地球科学进展, 2001(4):461-466. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-8166.2001.04.002 YUAN Daoxian. World correlation of karst ecosystem: Objectives and implementation plan[J]. Advance in Earth Sciences, 2001(4): 461-466. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-8166.2001.04.002
[24]	董晓超, 熊康宁, 朱大运, 蓝家程, 廖建军, 曹洋, 刘兴宜. 喀斯特生态环境风险评价:以贵州省为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2019, 38(5):713-721. doi: 10.11932/karst20190507 DONG Xiaochao, XIONG Kangning, ZHU Dayun, LAN Jiacheng, LIAO Jianjun, CAO Yang, LIU Xingyi. Risk assessment of karst ecological environments: A case study of Guizhou Province[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2019, 38(5): 713-721. doi: 10.11932/karst20190507
[25]	王茜, 赵筱青, 普军伟, 石小倩. 喀斯特山区土地利用变化对生态脆弱性的影响[J]. 山地学报, 2022, 40(2):289-302. WANG Qian, ZHAO Xiaoqing, PU Junwei, SHI Xiaoqian. Impact of land use changes in karst mountain area on ecological vulnerability[J]. Mountain Research, 2022, 40(2): 289-302.
[26]	官冬杰, 苏维词. 基于GIS重庆岩溶地区生态环境脆弱度评价[J]. 中国岩溶, 2006, 25(3):211-218. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4810.2006.03.005 GUAN Dongjie, SU Weici. GIS-based eco-environment vulnerability assessment in Chongqing karst region[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2006, 25(3): 211-218. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4810.2006.03.005
[27]	安芬, 李旭东, 程东亚. 贵州省乌江流域生态脆弱性评价及其空间变化特征[J]. 水土保持通报, 2019, 39(4):261-269. AN Fen, LI Xudong, CHENG Dongya. Ecological vulnerability assessment and spatial variation characteristics of Wujiang river basin in Guizhou Province[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 39(4): 261-269.
[28]	陈群利, 左太安, 孟天友, 张凤太. 基于SPA的毕节水土流失区生态脆弱性评价[J]. 中国水土保持, 2010(12):53-56. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0941.2010.12.019 CHEN Qunli, ZUO Taian, MENG Tianyou, ZHANG Fengtai. Evaluation of ecological vulnerability in soil erosion area of Bijie based on SPA[J]. Soil and Water Conservation in China, 2010(12): 53-56. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0941.2010.12.019
[29]	郭兵, 姜琳, 罗巍, 杨光, 戈大专. 极端气候胁迫下西南喀斯特山区生态系统脆弱性遥感评价[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(21):7219-7231. GUO Bing, JIANG Lin, LUO Wei, YANG Guang, GE Dazhuan. Study of an evaluation method of ecosystem vulnerability based on remote sensing in a Southwestern karst mountain area under extreme climatic conditions[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(21): 7219-7231.
[30]	肖小林, 兰安军, 熊康宁. 基于GIS的邢江河流域生态环境敏感性分析[J]. 人民长江, 2015, 46(9):68-72. XIAO Xiaolin, LAN Anjun, XIONG Kangning. Analysis on ecological environmental sensitivity of Xinjiang river basin based on GIS[J]. Yangtze River, 2015, 46(9): 68-72.
[31]	谢人栋, 赵翠薇. 基于栅格尺度的喀斯特槽谷区生态环境脆弱性时空分异研究[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2018, 35(4):48-53. doi: 10.11988/ckyyb.20171227 XIE Rendong, ZHAO Cuiwei. Spatio-temporal differentiation of ecological environment vulnerability in karst trough region based on grid scale[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 2018, 35(4): 48-53. doi: 10.11988/ckyyb.20171227
[32]	胡宝清, 金姝兰, 曹少英, 蒋树芳. 基于GIS技术的广西喀斯特生态环境脆弱性综合评价[J]. 水土保持学报, 2004, 18(1):103-107. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1009-2242.2004.01.027 HU Baoqing, JIN Shulan, CAO Shaoying, JIANG Shufang. Comprehensive evaluation of fragile karst eco-environment in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region based on GIS[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2004, 18(1): 103-107. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1009-2242.2004.01.027
[33]	靖娟利, 陈植华, 胡成, 王中美. 中国西南部岩溶山区生态环境脆弱性评价[J]. 地质科技情报, 2003, 22(3):95-99. JING Juanli, CHEN Zhihua, HU Cheng, WANG Zhongmei. Study on eco-environment fragile evaluation of karst mountains in Southwest China[J]. Geological Science and Technology Information, 2003, 22(3): 95-99.
[34]	李阳兵, 谢德体, 魏朝富, 屈双荣. 西南岩溶山地生态脆弱性研究[J]. 中国岩溶, 2002, 21(1):25-29. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4810.2002.01.006 LI Yangbing, XIE Deti, WEI Chaofu, QU Shuangrong. The fragility of eco-environment in Southwest China karst mountain[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2002, 21(1): 25-29. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4810.2002.01.006
[35]	束龙仓, 柯婷婷, 刘丽红, 张蓉蓉, 鲁程鹏. 基于综合法的岩溶山区生态系统脆弱性评价:以贵州省普定县为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2010, 29(2):141-144. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4810.2010.02.006 SHU Longcang, KE Tingting, LIU Lihong, ZHANG Rongrong, LU Chengpeng. Assessment on ecosystem fragility of karst mountain areas based on synthetic method: A case study in Puding county, Guizhou Province[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2010, 29(2): 141-144. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4810.2010.02.006
[36]	苏维词. 岩溶地区生态环境敏感度评价研究:以乌江流域为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 1997, 16(1):58-66. SU Weici. Appraisal study on the sensitivity of eco-environment in karst region: A case study of the Wujiang river valley[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 1997, 16(1): 58-66.
[37]	劳文科, 祁晓凡, 刘慧敏, 蒋忠诚, 覃小群, 覃星铭. 广西果化龙何地区表层带岩溶水系统及其水资源特征[J]. 中国岩溶, 2008, 27(2):122-128. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4810.2008.02.005 LAO Wenke, QI Xiaofan, LIU Huimin, JIANG Zhongcheng, QIN Xiaoqun, QIN Xingming. Characters of epikarst water system and water resources in Longhe, Guohua, Guangxi[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2008, 27(2): 122-128. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4810.2008.02.005
[38]	吴泽燕, 罗为群, 蒋忠诚, 章程, 胡兆鑫, 曹建华. 土壤改良对土壤水水化学及碳酸盐岩溶蚀的CO₂净消耗量的影响[J]. 中国岩溶, 2019, 38(1):60-69. doi: 10.11932/karst20190107 WU Zeyan, LUO Weiqun, JIANG Zhongcheng, ZHANG Cheng, HU Zhaoxin, CAO Jianhua. Effects of filter sludge and organic manure soil improvement on soil hydrochemistry and net CO₂ consumption of dissolution of carbonate rocks[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2019, 38(1): 60-69. doi: 10.11932/karst20190107
[39]	蒋忠诚, 李先琨, 覃小群, 吕仕洪, 罗为群, 蓝芙宁, 曹建华. 论岩溶峰丛洼地石漠化的综合治理技术:以广西平果果化示范区为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2008, 27(1):50-55. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4810.2008.01.009 JIANG Zhongcheng, LI Xiankun, QIN Xiaoqun, LYU Shihong, LUO Weiqun, LAN Funing, CAO Jianhua. Comprehensive improving technique to rocky desertification in karst peak-cluster depression: A case study at Guohua ecological experimental area, Pingguo, Guangxi[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2008, 27(1): 50-55. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4810.2008.01.009
[40]	田亚平, 常昊. 中国生态脆弱性研究进展的文献计量分析[J]. 地理学报, 2012, 67(11):1515-1525. doi: 10.11821/xb201211008 TIAN Yaping, CHANG Hao. Bibliometric analysis of research progress on ecological vulnerability in China[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2012, 67(11): 1515-1525. doi: 10.11821/xb201211008
[41]	赵跃龙, 张玲娟. 脆弱生态环境定量评价方法的研究[J]. 地理科学, 1998(1):78-84. ZHAO Yuelong, ZHANG Lingjuan. Study on method of quantitative assessment of fragile environment[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 1998(1): 78-84.
[42]	雷波, 焦峰, 王志杰, 刘源鑫, 朱乐天. 黄土丘陵区不同植被带典型小流域生态脆弱性评价[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2013, 22(5):149-159. LEI Bo, JIAO Feng, WANG Zhijie, LIU Yuanxin, ZHU Letian. Eco-environment vulnerability assessment of typical small watersheds in different vegetation zones of loess hilly area[J]. Journal of Natural Disasters, 2013, 22(5): 149-159.
[43]	黄方, 刘湘南, 张养贞. GIS支持下的吉林省西部生态环境脆弱态势评价研究[J]. 地理科学, 2003, 23(1):95-100. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0690.2003.01.017 HUANG Fang, LIU Xiangnan, ZHANG Yangzhen. GIS-based eco-environmental vulnerability evaluation in west Jilin Province[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2003, 23(1): 95-100. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0690.2003.01.017
[44]	苏浩然, 彭荣熙, 刘涛. 村镇尺度生态脆弱性评价研究进展与展望[J]. 小城镇建设, 2023, 41(4):5-10. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-1483.2023.04.002 SU Haoran, PENG Rongxi, LIU Tao. Progress and prospect of research on village-scale ecological vulnerability assessment[J]. Development of Small Cities & Towns, 2023, 41(4): 5-10. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-1483.2023.04.002
[45]	邓亚东, 杨洪勇, 郭小红, 陈镭友, 陈愉, 张宁静. 旅游洞穴景点保护等级评价:以重庆酉阳太古洞为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2021, 40(6):987-994. doi: 10.11932/karst20210608 DENG Yadong, YANG Hongyong, GUO Xiaohong, CHEN Leiyou, CHEN Yu, ZHANG Ningjing. Evaluation of graded protection of scenic spots in tourist caves: A case study of Taigu cave, Youyang, Chongqing[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2021, 40(6): 987-994. doi: 10.11932/karst20210608
[46]	洪增林, 徐通, 薛旭平. 基于AHP的地质遗迹旅游资源评价:以汉中天坑群为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2019, 38(2):276-280. HONG Zenglin, XU Tong, XUE Xuping. Evaluation of geological relics tourism resources based on AHP: An example of the Hanzhong Tiankeng group[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2019, 38(2): 276-280.
[47]	王桂林, 强壮, 曹聪, 陈瑶, 郝晋渝. 基于地理探测器与层次分析法的岩溶地面塌陷易发性评价:以重庆中梁山地区为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2022, 41(1):79-87. doi: 10.11932/karst2021y08 WANG Guilin, QIANG Zhuang, CAO Cong, CHEN Yao, HAO Jinyu. Evaluation of susceptibility to karst collapse based on the geodetector and analytic hierarchy method: An example of the Zhongliangshan area in Chongqing[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2022, 41(1): 79-87. doi: 10.11932/karst2021y08
[48]	蒋忠诚, 李先琨, 曾馥平, 庞冬辉, 吕仕洪, 邱泗杰, 王克林, 覃小群, 苏以荣, 邓艳, 罗为群, 蓝芙宁, 肖润林, 黄玉清, 王晓英, 向悟生, 欧祖兰, 何成新, 王久荣, 陆树华, 赵草著, 陈洪松, 蒙福贵, 韦政社, 覃瑞康, 覃练久, 李成海. 岩溶峰丛洼地生态重建[M]. 北京:地质出版社, 2007:202-208.
[49]	宋涛, 邹胜章, 张连凯, 周长松, 赵一, 沈利娜. 岩溶湿地退化评价指标体系构建初探[J]. 中国岩溶, 2020, 39(5):673-681. doi: 10.11932/karst20200504 SONG Tao, ZOU Shengzhang, ZHANG Liankai, ZHOU Changsong, ZHAO Yi, SHEN Lina. Preliminary study on the construction of evaluation index system of karst wetland degradation[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2020, 39(5): 673-681. doi: 10.11932/karst20200504
[50]	马骏, 李昌晓, 魏虹, 马朋, 杨予静, 任庆水, 张雯. 三峡库区生态脆弱性评价[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(21):7117-7129. MA Jun, LI Changxiao, WEI Hong, MA Peng, YANG Yujing, REN Qingshui, ZHANG Wen. Dynamic evaluation of ecological vulnerability in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region in Chongqing Municipality, China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(21): 7117-7129.
[51]	蒋忠诚, 李先琨, 胡宝清, 王雷, 王新桂, 韦兰英, 韦政社, 尹辉, 邓艳, 田涛, 吕仕洪, 向悟生, 刘占明, 闫妍, 劳文科, 苏以荣, 苏宗明, 李成海, 吴孔运, 沈利娜, 张中峰, 陆树华, 陈洪松, 罗为群, 庞冬辉, 侯满福, 莫凌, 黄玉清, 黄和明,覃小群, 覃星铭, 曾馥平, 蓝芙宁, 锻炼. 广西岩溶山区石漠化及其综合治理研究[M]. 北京:科学出版社, 2011:89-108.
[52]	中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局. GB/T 26424—2010 森林资源规划设计调查技术规程[S].2011. General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China. GB/T 26424—2010 Technical regulations for inventory for forest management planning and design[S].2011.